Faced with dim prospects for reelection in Pennsylvania, Sen. Arlen Specter has announced that he will switch parties. The question is how democrats in Pennsylvania will feel about Specter who supported Bush on critical issues. After eight years under George W. Bush, Specter has come to the conclusion that he is really a Democrat and does not share the same GOP values as his former party.
Specter issued a statement that “I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.” Specter came to this epiphany not during the torture debate or the unlawful surveillance debate (which he publicly criticized the Administration but ultimately voted to back up the president), but rather when Republicans are failing like leaves and Democrats are preparing for a highly likely victory. By resigning now, Specter hopes to start to vote in line with his state to erase the memories of the last six years in his votes on Supreme Court nominees, immunity and other issues. Spector has often played Hamlet on such issues publicly, but largely worked with the Administration in securing votes on most of these issues. Indeed, his Chairmanship (before the fall of the GOP in the Senate) was based on his assured loyalty to the Bush agenda.
What is interesting is that in the statement below, Specter focuses on the unpopularity of the stimulus vote to Republicans and says that he regrets that so many in the GOP do not want him for their candidate. It falls a bit flat as a statement of principle and value differences.
The Senate Democrats have welcomed Specter into the fold and are expected to give him some seniority benefits for his defection.
Specter, 79 is in his fifth term and his new strategy will test how short the memory of Pennsylvania voters is. , is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said the White House as well as leaders in both parties had been involved in discussions leading to his move.
If Franken wins in Minnesota, it will give Democrats total control and filibuster proof in the Senate.
Here is his full statement this afternoon:
Statement by Sen. Arlen Specter:
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the state, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for reelection determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for reelection because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
For the full story, click here and here.
Bron,
I understand your point, but I react to mindlessness of the radical variety badlt. This goes back to my 60’s experience as I watched the people who thought they were keepers of political purity, bring about an expansion of the horrors they supposedly were against. Like fundamentalists, political purists are a dangerous breed that usually hurt us all in their zeal to prove their view the correct one.
MikeS:
“The trouble with struggling to be out on the edge is that the vehemence used to convince yourself of being special, only masks a superficial belief.”
Isnt vehemence a sympton of youth? You find something you like and embrace it with exuberance to the exclusion of all else, whether it be a woman or words. Age mellows the passions and more the pitty. BVM is just finding his way in the world.
“sorry typo:
I don’t see Republicans or Democrats anymore. I just see Congress and Washington D.C. with 99% Warmongers and War Criminals.”
I don’t see BuenaVistMall anymore. I see a wannabe radical, who is incapable of offering intelligent comments, or positing any solutions to the problems that face us. Since I been to your site, you don’t seem a troll, but that in truth makes you more pitiful. Your philosophy could be summed up by a mythical discussion you might have with your best friend, if that is even possible. To wit:
“In all this world only you and I can be trusted to be pure of intention and able to radically change things. Only some times I’m not really sure about the purity of your motives.”
It’s a lonely path you’ve picked for yourself BVM and it leads to despair rather than freedom. However, if its’ any comfort to you some of the most radical people I knew in the 60’s, Maoist’s of the Progressive Labor Party, are now Republican’s with family’s. The trouble with struggling to be out on the edge is that the vehemence used to convince yourself of being special, only masks a superficial belief.
here is some interesting info you will not find in the main stream media:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3790
and also this from another website:
Here’s what one web site said on Feb. 16, 2006:
“Last week, U.S. President George W. Bush revealed in a public speech that U.S. authorities, working in concert with foreign intelligence and security agencies, had disrupted an al Qaeda plot in
2002 involving an aircraft attack against a skyscraper in Los Angeles. The attack originally had been planned to take place in October 2001, one month after the 9/11 attacks, but was repeatedly delayed for numerous reasons.
“As outlined by the president, the attack would have unfolded along now-familiar lines: Four al Qaeda operatives were supposed to hijack an airliner, seize the controls and ram the aircraft into the tallest building on the West Coast–the U.S. Bank Tower, formerly known as the Library Tower. The weapons used were to have been explosives the operatives concealed in their shoes, which supposedly would have aided them in blowing off the cockpit doors.”
The attack was foiled because of information given by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, under interrogation at Gitmo. Whatever “torture” they applied to him saved thousands of lives.”
John Puma 1, April 29, 2009 at 6:13 am
What the Dems get out of this are:
1) . . . .
3) And, amazingly, a possible change in committee chairs: “Rumor in Washington has it that . . . the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to the new Democrat, Specter”
***********************************************************
Now this makes me warm and Fuzzy. As muh Daughter would say, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah. NOT.
What the Dems get out of this are:
1) New “resolve” for the Rep governor of Minnesota to not certify Franken as the winner of the Nov 2008 senatorial race vs Coleman,
2) Another member of the “institutionalized” senate “Blue Dog” contingent, formed ostensibly to negate the otherwise commanding Dem senate majority,
3) And, amazingly, a possible change in committee chairs: “Rumor in Washington has it that Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) may step down from the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, giving the seat to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) — and opening the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to the new Democrat, Specter” !?!?
(http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/28/specter-opposes-johnsen/)
As to guaranteed votes from senators, the only know method to elicit same is anthrax in the mail.
This is a Good Thing right? Well I think that the GOP has and will show their true colors, the harder it get the more Republicans we will get.
AnonY:
You say that watching the bird reunite with its mother kind of made your day,and as you say its amazing what little things like that can do,when you get older.
Mine was listening and seeing all of the “Repubs”throwing Arlen under the bus yesterday.
They really do eat their own,case in point when Phil Graham became a Republican,there was hardly a murmur from the Dems,I guess they knew what he was about anyway.
sorry typo:
I don’t see Republicans or Democrats anymore. I just see Congress and Washington D.C. with 99% Warmongers and War Criminals.
I don’t see Republicans or Democrats anymore. I just Congress and Washington D.C. with 99% Warmongers and War Criminals.
I don’t really see this resulting in filibuster-proof senate either. I do see his defection as a blow to the Republican party (he did have some rather nasty parting words to the GOP), but I’m not sure it’s a net gain for the Democrats. It remains to be seen that he will/can be made to support Democratic legislation, oppose GOP radicalization, or advance the president’s agenda. I hope some good will come of it.
rafflaw –
My first thoughts on that, too. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. But I also think he’s just desperate to stay in the senate no matter what. And then rcampbell’s take is exactly where my mind also wandered on the inside deal:
“He’ll probably be given some latitude for renegade votes on
certain issues, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry Reid was given the business end of a chain tied to Specter’s voting finger that Reid can give a yank whenever there’s a high priority, President-Obama-agenda item on the docket.”
In other words, be your independent-self all you want, until we tell you it matters. Then you vote how we say you vote. And you can keep a seat in the senate …
Fergit bout it, I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue. And then you are gonna be real sorry.
Thanks Mike S. I sincerely appreciate that!
Per your request, AY. Read for yourself…
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/26/the-alberto-gonzales-defense-judge-bybee-reportedly-denies-that-he-wrote-infamous-memo/#comment-49883
#
Patty C 1, April 27, 2009 at 1:36 pm
That’s it. I am going state this once and then I am
DONE!
In ‘fairness’ to seamus,’Esq’, no less, not that he deserves it from me, perhaps if it weren’t for Jill’s flagrant disregard for my many requests to ‘Cool it’ and watch her potty mouth, which he no doubt was mirroring, perhaps he would not otherwise have been disposed to foul the area with exchanges so incredibly disrespectful and juvenile. We may never know, now…
etc etc etc
—
BTW, AY, hassling me by ‘YELLING in caps’, attempting to assign blame for legitimately objecting to ‘baloney’ and being generally insulting will not endear oneself to me. If you act like a jerk, I’ll treat you like one.
And I will stick up for myself. The first time I’m usually very polite – second time, not so much. It’s pretty simple cause and effect type of stuff.
This blog used to be delightful fun almost every day. I do miss that.
The level of discourse took a dive after the departure of DW, our fellow poster and friend, because of recurrence of his illness.
This place has never been the same since, in my opinion.
I wouldn’t get too excited about Spector changing his stripes. He has already stated that he won’t vote for Obama’s OLC nominee. Beware of a Democrat in Wolf’s clothing.
Mike Spidell,
I have been scolded. I acknowledge this and I apologize.
The Specter of Pop Cornyn Saving America:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/specter-of-pop-cornyn-saving-america.html
Harrumph. Yet another very interesting topic is turning into the Patty C show.
Specter is also a War Criminal. He voted to invade Iraq and fund the Wars. He conspired and waged Wars of Aggression – the worst crimes in the world. He is a Warmonger just like Hitler.
Arlen Spector and Gerry Ford thought up the single bullet theory of the warren Commission Report. To me that says it all and he has done nothing since that time to increase my confidence in him. I don’t see this as a Democratic gain, but a millstone of a losing candidate in 2010.
Also, I’ve read every post on this thread and I don’t understand why Patty C. was brought into this, not that she didn’t have a right to join. AY your remark was gratuitous an uncalled for and Mike A. your response was the same. Our host has quite specifically asked us to play nice and given the crappy arguments on other sites, this one is a blessing.Why don’t we keep it that way?